Yesterday, I published an article criticizing Newt Gingrich's
argument that in order to cure poverty, the United States needed to
relax its child labor laws. Specifically, I took issue with his proposal
that schools should fire all but one of their unionized janitors and
replace them with kids as young as nine. The piece is here, but to get a flavor of it, this was my main point:

"It's not really worth engaging Gingrich's idea as a serious policy
suggestion. I just don't see the buckets-and-books plan getting much
traction in Congress. But his comments are worth dwelling on for a
moment, because they're a jarring illustration of Gingrich's casual
disdain for American workers."

The article received more than 200 comments that fell into three camps: People who agreed with me; people who felt I wasn't giving Gingrich a fair hearing; and people who thought that while his proposal was
flawed, there was something to the idea of teaching children hard work
and responsibility.

Here are some of the most insightful and interesting comments.

"Perhaps if you saw a workforce that didn't consist of only
nine year olds playing with high voltage an hydrochloric acid, you'd
realize how practical this idea actually is."

RobM: Ten year old children can mop, wipe down surfaces.
Twelve year old children can stack chairs in the cafeteria, clean the
cafeteria, etc.
Fourteen year old children can learn about basic plumbing and repairs,
and can then maintain the basic plumbing and repairing.
Sixteen year olds can learn basic electrical work, and can have their
work supervised and inspected - in the process they learn some skills.
Juniors at vocational schools show this to be absolutely true.
Perhaps if you saw a workforce that didn't consist of only nine year
olds playing with high voltage and hydrochloric acid, you'd realize how
practical this idea actually is. At fourteen years old supervised
children are fully capable of doing a surprisingly large number of
mechanical and physical tasks. They do this on farms all the time. By
16 these kids could have learned any number of skills useful in their
later lives.
Clearly it's better for 12 year old kids to eat junk food while cruising
on Facebook, right?

A number of readers argued that I was exaggerating the dangers janitorial work might pose to children. Many noted, for instance, that you could have kids
of different ages handling separate tasks. A couple of issues here:
First, Newt Gingrich isn't talking about 16-year-olds. Under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, teens 16-to-18 are allowed to work unlimited hours in
any occupation, as long as it isn't considered "hazardous." Hazardous
jobs, in that case, mean things like coal mining and working in
explosives factories. Not janitorial work. So presumably, high schools
can already hire their juniors and seniors. Regarding mopping and wiping
down surfaces, some of it might well be harmless. But a lot of that
wiping is where the hazardous chemicals come into play. Nonetheless, Rob
has a point: 14-year-olds aren't completely helpless.

"Classic straw man argument..."

Gat007: classic straw man argument ...where exactly in his speech does gingrich mention 9 year
olds toying with HVAC equipment? obviously, the janitorial functions
would be assigned according to age and ability. and obviously the most
complex tasks would be performed by the master janitor and perhaps his
or her assistant if necessary (i.e. larger schools might require
additional adult staff). gingrich's point was simply that at least some
janitorial duties could be performed by students, giving them a sense
of pride and work ethic, and at the same time saving the school district
some cash. i also assume the work would be voluntary, with parental
consent required. the work could also be rotated, so that each student
need not spend an inordinate amount of time on this work as opposed to
their studies.

Gingrich didn't get deep into logistics, but many readers
were happy to fill in the gap. I'm not really an expert on school
maintenance, but Gat007's solution seems like a bit of an organizational
nightmare. Also, if you're rotating the work between students, that
would undermine the idea of it as a poverty fighting tool. But who
knows. Maybe it could work.

"I taught high school in Japan for two years...Gingrich's fundamental
idea is not nearly as crazy as this article makes it out to be."

Chinko Manko: I taught high school in Japan for two years. The students there are
responsible for taking the trash from the rooms to the dumpster and
cleaning the floors, windows, chalkboards, etc. As a result the
students are much more respectful of the property and less inclined to
make messes or vandalize property. The schools save money and the
children develop more responsibility. They still have a
maintenance/janitorial staff that handles difficult and dangerous tasks.
I think this is what Gingrich meant by a "master janitor." I think
most schools would require more than one and would still need a night
crew to come in on occasion and do the heavy duty cleaning. However,
Gingrich's fundamental idea is not nearly as crazy as this article makes
it out to be

Several commenters made the comparison to Asian schools, and I
actually thought the point was fascinating. Here's a short U.S. News
piece about the practice. I'll leave a response to the next commenter.

poorrichkids: In all the comments about Asian models, or how it won't kill kids to
work a little in schools, I don't see any recognition of the following:
Newt isn't talking about "kids" working in schools here - he's talking
about poor kids, i.e. people "under 16 or 14 years old" , as Newt says.
Are they really already old enough to be held responsible for lifting
themselves out of poverty and reducing costs of school maintenance?

This is an important distinction that seemed to be lost for some.
Gingrich isn't talking about a collective act of school spirit. He's
talking about a way for a few underprivileged children to make a
living. Poorrichkids later said he wasn't taking a position on
Gingrich's proposal, but he does ask some important questions.

"It turns out that way back in 1980, my school followed this plan."

David Gunter: It turns out that way back in 1980 my school (private school) actually followed this plan. That is, our 400 pupil school had but one janitor. He hired two of us kids (myself and another friend) to work after school 2 hours every day. We cleaned bathrooms, emptied trash cans, mopped or vacuumed floors, cleaned windows and cleaned chalkboards. It only took the two of us to clean the entire school over a week's time. I'm sure the school saved a little on having to hire adults to do the same job while give us kids a chance to earn some real money. As much as I like the idea since it worked out for me, it is an untenable solution. I had this after school job for 2 years, as did another friend. There simply isn't a way to employ a majority of the kids in this fashion. Also, the public high school where my wife teaches only has one full-time janitor. The rest of the help is all part-time, about the same hours as I had as a kid. There isn't much money to be saved by cutting the janitorial staff.

"If the school bully found out I was cleaning toilets I would have have been an object of ridicule and abuse."

1reasononly1:I worked as a janitor in my parents business starting at 6 years old so
my dad could finish college. But if the school bully found out I was
cleaning toilets I would have been an object of ridicule and abuse. This
would create a class system within the school where children should be
shielded from class discrimination.

With all due respect for your insight into parenting gentlemen, don't you think the best way to teach kids about the value of work is to put food on the table through a working role model parental figure? What will happen is the job will be taken from dad who is now on extended unemployment benefits, drawing medicare and given to Junior who now resents the system for forcing his family deeper into poverty. We are talking about taking away a job from a hard working member of our society and displacing them into oblivion, there is nowhere to go.

A crucial but easy to overlook point: kids are cruel. Nobody
wants to see junior get dunked in the toilet he was just cleaning. Also, this proposal would mean taking jobs from adults, who presumably also have children to feed.

"I am a custodian and I assure you an upkeep of any school is not as easy as you may think."

Luis Enrique Perez: I am a custodian and i assure you an upkeep of any school is not as
easy as you may think. There area number of things that need to be done
every single day in maintaining a school. Classrooms; desks are set and
floors swept, boards cleaned, window blinds dusted as well as TVs,
computers, file cabinets. Windows must be locked and secured, graffiti
removed and garbage removed, classroom floors scraped and/or mopped.
Each section has about 10 to 12 classrooms. Each section has a set of
bathrooms which have to be swept, disinfected, toilets scrubbed, sinks
scrubbed, mirrors cleaned, floors mopped, garbage removed and toilet
paper stocked, clogs taken care of and grafitti removed and walls wiped
down depending on the day. The ladies bathrooms have feminie sanitary
napkins that need to be removed. Then you have the long hallways that
need to be pushed, either spot mopped or fully mopped, depending on the
day. Gum scraped and lockers dusted or grafitti removed, depending on
the day. Every section has atleast 1 entrance that needs to be secured,
door windows cleaned and carpets vacuumed. Now, lets talk about floor
stripping....heavy machinery is used to strip floors which get very very
slippery when you use floor stripper on them. You have to wear special
shoes for this job. Im a grown man and still I lose control of the
machinery at times which has knock me on my behind a few time. Its a
heavy machine that needs to be held very steay as you walk on those
slipper floors swinging from left to right, up and down. Onec the floor
is stripped it has to be rinsed and mopped thorougly before you start
the waxing process. Again you have to use a specialwax that you mop on
to the floor, making sure you use even and through strokes, as if you
were painting the floor. After School activities such as sports,
concerts, board meeting, gir scout meetings, adult ed classes. You have
to set up coffee and water for those board meetings and be available if
they need anything. You need to set up rooms (cafeteria) (Teachers
lounge) for Girl Scouts meetings. If theres a concert you need to act as
security because the public is entering the building and you need to
clean the auditoriom after the event.Sports; setup, if its an out door
sport you need to drive the mini carts to deliver, sporting equipment or
sports clocks, or the elderly etc...When it snows...shoveling, snow
removal, when it rains....leaks. Cafeteria, lifting of benches and
wiping down all tables and benches, chair stacking, floor sweeping and
mopping. Midterms....desks have to be moved from classrooms into gym
area. In my school we do 500 desks in 3 to 4 hours. etc etc etc much
more than I can list here....Do you really think a bunch of young kids
could handle this day in and day out? If someone has an accident, how
would they handle it? If the fire alarm goes off? One Head Janitor would
not be able to do it alone. And what about during the day? Who is going
to work that shift? Get my point? Garbage removal is not as lite as you
think either, there have been times when ive hurt myself lifting heavy
bags of garbag. Each classroom has 1 or 2 garbag cans. Each hallway has 1
or 2 large garbage cans...when there are events there is lts of garbage
removal. Cleaning locker rooms and gym floors is a very heavy job. We
get 2 breaks a day, a 15 minute coffe break and a 1/2 hour dinner break.
It takes an 8 hour day to do a basic job and there are many times when
extra work needs to get done so we get 1 or 2 hours of OT to be able to
get it done.

"All you're doing is reinstating the idea of apprenticeship."

Karl Moles: If the idea is to have the student work to contribute
income to the household then would the idea be to give their hard earned
money to the parents to do with as they please or does this merely
allow the student a bit of extra cash? if the latter then i cant see
very many children being willing to put their money toward their
family's wellbeing. they simply aren't going to think in those terms.
thirdly, regardless of who would end up in control of the money
legally you're going to see large numbers of parents from poorer
backgrounds forcing the kids to work against their will so that they can
take the money. not all parents will do this of course, but its
inevitable that it will occur. particularly in cases where the parents
don't put much value on education the children are likely to be
"encouraged" to skip studying in favor of working longer hours. limits
would have to be put in place on the GPA necessary to participate in
these programs which would lead to only the top students who are more
likely to succeed anyway being allowed to work.
finally, if you open the door to working as a janitor in this way
you are in effect saying that work in general is ok. not necessarily a
problem but in essence all you're doing is reinstating the idea of
apprenticeship.
perhaps a more reasonable idea would be to allow the student to
work in a profession of their choosing at a company or public service
willing to accept them in exchange for school supplies, food, and small
amounts of school credit. in such a scenario there would be no cash pay
for multiple years and upon graduating high school their accumulated
income (which would be below minimum wage to make it worthwhile for the
companies and to compensate for the supplies) would go toward college or
vocational school in the area they now had experience in. if they did
well enough perhaps they could become certified in their particular
chosen field.
that sounds more reasonable to me.

This brings up a more general issue that I personally wish I had spent a bit more time considering: The problem with child labor isn't just that it could potentially
hurt kids, but also that it sets them up for exploitation. The
reader's policy proposal might be tough to implement, but it's a
thoughtful start.